Demon Dynasty

And also derided/lambasted Reimers in this first week for talking rubbish over the supplements program during his whistle blowing interview. In addition, when asked tonight whether there were any players other than Zaharakis who refused the program McVeigh intially said something along the lines of "there were others", then when prompted again said "the OTHER player", then contradicted himself yet again a little while afterwards saying "the others who refused". The question also needs to be asked, why is McVeigh's view given more weight than the guy who started the ball rolling in the first place, Kyle Reimers? McVeigh's reaction/info in that first week towards Reimers and his interview has since been proven to be so off the money yet Chanel 7 uses McVeigh as their main "go to" guy for all things Essendon. Seems a little strange IMO. Why not bring in Reimers for his opinion as well???

I don't often see eye to eye with you Soxy but on this one i'm with you. SOFT SOFT SOFT!!! Both mentally and physically. It was Watts earlier in the year who whined and went sooky sooky la la in public interview after a loss about being dissapointed that he wasn't playing in a team with any decent leaders like Selwood, Hodge etc. No matter how much you might desire that, IMO if you are a team player you just wouldn't go public about it. There's nothing TEAM orientated in that or this bloke's behavior on and off the field. He's a liability and has been carried and given too much leeway by all at the club. And yes that includes Craig. Stand up and have some balls Craigy and call it for what it is mate. The bloke can hold out but don't make a bloody song and dance of it via Manager. He just aint THAT good yet. Honor before honors Mr Craig. Another negative cross against appointing Craig. I'm tending more and more towards Choco as the days pass (assuming Roos is unavailable as stated). Watts doesn't or isn't willing to do the hard 1 percenter team things on the field either that might inspire a hard nosed coach and FD to want to continue putting time/effort & $$ into. He plays a "bruise free" selfish style of game with a few minor exceptions demonstrated over 4 years. He isn't alone in that regard (ie., not being hard nosed at the ball/carrier, doing the critical 1 percenters etc) and certainly not expecting a Nathan Jones type, but i'd take a Kent/Howe/Terlich/Grimes type attitude with some reasonable talent over a primadona like Watts anyday. Time to trade for a half decent mid fielder and reasonable draft pick. One of the biggest mistakes (of many) this club has made in the last decade was not going after Nic Nat and instead putting their blind faith in this bloke. His rankings vs the rest of his 37 team mates (that had played up to Round 15 against the Swans on which these stats are taken) are as follows...... Contested 15th (no i'm not expecting a mid field/on baller result here) Uncontested 17th (not so good given he plays most of the time in space/getting away from his opponent or playing loose down back for the most part of the first half of the season) Effective Disposals 13th (a pass mark but not setting the world on fire) Effective Disposal % 8th (a good result but has a below average disposal count vs top 18. Just doesn't get enough of it to be damaging) Clangers 31st (positive result as you would expect given his disposal effectiveness %) Contested Marks 9th (average ranking vs top 18 regulars) Goal Assists 16th Marks i50 4th (competitive effort but even Fitzy is up on him here at no. 3 and he's only had a handfull of games) 1 Percenters 15th (Bettered by Pedo, Sellar, Strauss, Nicho and even newcomer Clisby!) Kicks 17th (simply doesn't get enough of it himself unless someone's giving it to him on a platter) Handballs 15th (as above) Inside 50s 23rd Tackles 34th (only beaten to the bottom by 3 others..... Clisby [35th], Blease [36th] and Gillies [37th]) Basically Watts is sitting on the outer edge in most comparative stats vs his team mates (ie., sitting a little inside the top 18 rankings/players on most stats) with the exception of contested marks (9th), Marks i50 (4th) and effective disposal percentage (8th overall). His tackle ranking at 34 is IMO a solid indicator of a man that is either unable or unwilling to impose himself on his opponent and the contest when he doesn't have the ball. I certainly wouldn't want that level of committment in a team member going into a big game where everything's on the line in the clinches. Time to part company with Jack Watts IF we can get some value for our severly under-manned mid field stocks.

Worth an attempt. Seriously lacking a small crumbing forward. The ball continuously gets crumbed front and square by most other teams' and rocketed out of our forward line with ease......year after year after year.

I think you'll find even those on a placebo see some sort of positive outcome. More like a Flacido program for our lot.

WYL the entire "out of contract" playing group might be waiting!!!

Top stuff Song. Funniest work around these parts for some time. Whole family had a chuckle over that clip and the context. Giving you 8/10 for that one mate

I think the first thread here is a forerunner as to whether Hulk will stay or move on after contract expires. This club would be in serious danger of folding in the next few years without the massive AFL lifebuoy that's already been thrown and we're pretty much AFL governed and funded anyway. Hurts to say but any young potential stars serious about their footy career won't be hanging around our parts for too long unless there's some sort of miracle turnaround next year, and the mid field problem is without doubt our biggest issue right now. Our stocks are woeful. At the same time how the hell does Choco continue to get a gig and survive the carnage??? The coaching staff and executive must somehow still be impressed. I've certainly yet to see anything positive in this part of our game.

Neeld's University may have been biased towards too much theory and he literally bored them all to death with this carp instead of focussing enough time/effort on pounding the skills/drills side of things into them on the track ie., the practical/match similution vs upcoming opponent. But as Old Dee said up there, we would want to be careful this doesn't go the same way. Most players are meat & 2 veg type blokes (Dawes a possible exception lol).... once you start complicating things beyond 2 +2 you lose em' fairly quickly i would think. I'm not saying they aren't intelligent either, just that they'd rather be on the track mostly, training it, rather than sittin on their arses in front of a 'white board' etc. Oops, i probably shouldn't use that term around here

Craig's first 5 games as Coach vs Neeld's last 5 Average Differential / Average Differential % increase/decrease Blue = positive result for Craig. Red = negative result for Craig. Black italics = potentially a negative/neutral or positive result. Contested +18 / +15.6% Uncontested +3.6 / +1.9% Effective Disposals +10.4 / +4.7% Effective Disposal % -3.3% Tackles +10.4 / +17.4% Clangers -2.6 / -5.5% Contested Marks +1 / +12.2% Goal Assists +1.8 / +37.5% Marks i50 +1.8 / +28.1% Clearances +4.6 / +14.8% 1 Percenters +4 / +9.0% Bounces +6.6 / +94.3% Kicks +22 / +12.5% Handballs +2.6 / +1.9% Inside 50s +6 / +16.9% *Disposals Per Goal -6.7 / -15.0% Rebound 50s +2.6 / +7.4% Kick to handball ratio has increased by 10.4% (Craig 1.43 v Neeld 1.30) *Note that our worst results this year were as follows..... 75.5 disposals per goal vs the Cats under Craig and 68 vs the Pies under Neeld. Our 2 best results were both under Neeld. 16.36 vs the Giants in Rnd 4 and 21.57 vs the Lions in Rnd 5. Craig's best result here so far is 23 vs the Bulldogs. Stats: Courtesy of Footywire

Daisy would you mind refraining from spoiling such "tried and true" phrases! We "live and die by the sword" and have to "gild the lily" a little at times in order to "make the most of what we have". Besides, you have to "give a little to get a little" and i'm afraid OD is kind of correct here...... "you can't fatten a pig on market day", especially when it's a sow and MFC's market day appears to be so bloody far away!!

Even worse IMO Red is bringing in Blease to replace Rodan. Why would you replace a genuine mid fielder (at least for us at the present moment) and not replace him with another, leaving us even more under manned in the rotations and even more vulnerable through the mid? Looking at the 3 of them, Byrnes/Blease/Rodan here are their rankings against the entire list of 37 that have played so far (38 if you include Joel MacDonald but he's excluded from the averages, only having played 1 match so far this season).... Contested Rodan (5th); Fair result, inside the top 5 Byrnes (23rd) ; Fail, outside the top 22 Blease (31st) ; Fail, outside the top 22 You would expect Blease to be low here given he's an outside runner/receiver. But again, to ommit Rodan and replace with an outside runner against one of the best congested defensive teams in the AFL? Not for mine. Uncontesed Byrnes (19th) ; I consider this a fail given that he doesn't appear to be playing a contested role very well either. Rodan (22nd) ; By the hair of his chinny chin chin he scrapes in to the top 22. probably not good enough though even so for a player of his experience. Blease (28th) ; Fail, not even close to the top 22 here. On the above 2 records alone this is a massive signal to a selection panel NOT to select Blease for his outside run for THIS particular match. Clearances Another key stat when trying to compete against such a competitive stoppage team like the Cats..... Rodan (4th) ; Good result, Top 5 Byrnes (13th) ; Slightly better than a pass given that's not his forte' Blease (25th) ; Even though he's an outside receiver/runner i consider this a fail as there's 24 players in front of him on this, not 21 Effective Disposals Now, lets look at how these three perform once they get the ball in their hands in terms of getting it to the next player with a degree of accuracy Rodan (17th) ; not so good Byrnes (22nd) ; a tad worse Blease (36th) ; only one below him here and that's Tom Gillies! Inside 50s Byrnes (9th) ; Pass Rodan (11th) ; Pass Blease (17th) ; Barely a pass and you would expect more given this is what he's probably expected to do a fair amount of. I agree Byrnes isn't setting the world on fire Red, but i'd have him before Blease (at this point) even just for his uncontested ability, and especially in a match against the Cats on his old home turf. I certainly wouldn't have Blease replacing Rodan. What a massive blunder on the selection panel and coach's part. And if you aren't doing so well at most of the above (Blease/Byrnes), then how about tackling your way into the contest, that might help a little?.... Tackles Rodan (4th) ; Top 5 is more than a pass Byrnes (16th) ; Barely a pass Blease (36th) ; Again, only beaten here by Tom Gillies Lets face it, Blease is just not up to this level.....yet. Maybe with another pre season and if he cleans up his disposals and improves his defensive side a little. In addition the selection panel should have bolstered the mid field rotations today (not depeleted them with the exclusion of Rodan for an outsider, who's not even very effective at doing that, in Blease). Magner an easy in today to account for Davey, especially on such a skinny ground where Magner would be more capable of getting to a few more contests at Skilled and potentially having a bigger impact than say Davey. My confidence in Neil Craig's pre match strategic thinking took a big hit today.

Well folks, we're 15 rounds in and deep into the 2013 season so i thought it might be interesting to see who's leading the count on some of the key (publicly available) stats. And yes i realise Magner has only played 2 matches so not really a meaningful number for an average, but hey, it's an average! I also realise most of Spencer's amazing disposal effectiveness % is down to him more than likely just a handfull of possessions where he handballs to a player 2 or 3 feet away for the easy lay off (often a set play around a ruckman) etc etc. But I'm just putting the raw numbers up for interest's sake. So here they are... (Player Average Per Game) Contested Possessions N Jones (10.43) J Magner (10.00) J Grimes (9.17) J Viney (8.67) D Rodan (8.13) C Sylvia (7.64) Uncontested Possessions M Clisby (16.67) M Jones (13.50) N Jones (12.79) D Terlich (12.69) J Grimes (11.67) C Sylvia (11.55) Clearances N Jones (5.64) J Magner (5.00) J Viney (4.17) D Rodan (3.75) J Grimes (3.33) J McKenzie (3.13) Effective Disposals1. M Clisby (17.00) 1. N Jones (17.00) 3. J Grimes (15.67) 4. D Terlich (15.31) 5. M Jones (13.86) 6. J Magner (13.00) Disposal Effectiveness % J Strauss (87.78) N Jetta (87.08) M Clisby (83.17) C Pedersen (82.45) J Spencer (82.03) J Frawley (80.99) Tackles J Magner (6.00) J Trengove (5.25) C Sylvia (4.64) D Rodan (4.63) C Garland (4.21) J Grimes (4.17) Clangers1. T Gillies (3.5) 2. M Clisby (3.0) 2. D Terlich (3.0) 4. J Viney (2.8) 5. J Spencer (2.7) 6. C Pedersen (2.6) Contested Marks J Howe (1.79) M Clark (1.50) C Dawes (1.38) M Gawn (1.25) M Jamar (1.11) J Fitzpatrick (1.00) Marks Inside 50 M Clark (1.75) J Fitzpatrick (1.60) J Howe (1.50) J Watts (1.30) C Dawes (1.25) M Gawn (0.88) Goal Assists C Dawes (0.88) J Fitzpatrick (0.80) C Sylvia (0.64) D Rodan (0.63) L Tapscott (0.60) M Evans (0.56) Rebound 50s T McDonald (4.22) D Terlich (4.00) C Garland (3.93) J Frawley (3.58) L Dunn (3.30) J Grimes (2.83) 1 Percenters C Garland (8.64) T Gillies (8.00) T McDonald (6.67) J Seller (4.83) C Pedersen (4.50) J Frawley (3.58) Bounces D Rodan (2.50) M Clisby (2.00) C Sylvia (1.82) S Blease (1.33) M Clark (1.25) M Jones (1.14) Inside 50s C Sylvia (5.09) C Dawes (3.25) M Evans (3.22) N Jones (3.07) J Magner (3.00) M Jones (2.86) Stats: Courtesy of Footywire

I guess that's pushing your age up there a bit OD. Apologies. I should have said Korean :-))

Great to hear, or should I say SEE, Bb. Nothing wrong with the humble carrot. P.S. Rohan Welsh is on SEN soonish. Bout to discuss Casey and Hulk etc for those who're interested.

Well I was trying to keep Bb's visionary flame burning there OD. Although going by his latest thread it wld appear his positivity hasn't skipped a beat. You seem to have the inside running on carrots. Is there something heroic in your past that you haven't told us about? Retired WW2 ace maybe? P.S. I think the bombers were eating too many bananas and attracted a few wild monkeys and those monkeys just may have brought in some funny bananas of their own!

BB, it would seem from your first post there that you're heavily reliant on eyesight going forward. I would recommend carrot cake for you at this point!

A big YES to that. President material?

Individual Stats - Top 3 (By Category) Contested Possessions 134 1. N Jones 2. Rodan/McDonald 3. Davey Uncontested Possessions 208 1. Clisby 2. M Jones 3. Terlich Effective Disposals 261 1. N Jones 2. Terlich 3. Frawley Effective Disposal % 75.87 1. Byrnes (Sub) 2. Frawley 3. N Jones/Garland *4. Kent * Have included the next ranking as Byrnes only played 1 quarter of football as sub. Tackles 81 1. Nicholson 2. Garland 3. Trengove/Sylvia Clangers 43 1. Howe/Trengove 2. N Jones/Gawn/M Jones/Dawes/Davey 3. Garland/Nicholson/McDonald/Dunn/Clisby/Blease/Rodan Contested Marks 14 1. Howe (4) 2. Dawes/Dunn/Fitzpatrick (2) 3. Gawn/McDonald/Frawley/Watts (1) Marks i50 9 1. Howe/Watts 3 2. Gawn/Fitzpatrick/Dawes 1 3. - Clearances 37 1. N Jones 2. Rodan/Davey/Nicholson 3. Byrnes (Sub) Rebound 50s 33 1. Terlich 2. McDonald 3. Dunn Bounces 15 1. Rodan 2. McDonald 3. M Jones/Sylvia Inside 50s 56 1. Rodan 2. Trengove/Howe/Dawes 3. M Jones/Davey/Fitzpatrick Stats: Courtesy of Footywire

Casey getting dominated in the center square hit outs (at least it appears that way without looking at the stats) but doing well to scrap and hunt the ball (ball carrier) down and not let their opponents make too much of first use.

Strauss best of the smalls so far IMO. Tappy's getting more of it and Magnet getting to many more contests. Nice tackle by Jetta on a much larger unit there in Bell to lock the ball in. I like Nicholls' bal use and ability to find space when he gets it

The above is from one part of the report only and is the one being selectively used by some journos and football commentators in support of the Bombers potentially having a case for an out. They are overlooking the appendix to that report which is more specific as to AOD 9604's classification status.... AOD 9604 AOD9604 is not currently prohibited under category S2 of the WADA Prohibited List. (<<< Correct. This is a statement of fact but does not mean that AOD9604 is approved either, as the quote below re human use clearly states) AOD9604 works by mimicking the way natural GH regulates the metabolism of fat by stimulating lipolysis (the breakdown or destruction of fat) and inhibits lipogenesis (the transformation of non-fat food materials into body fat). Reports by Caldaza Ltd have shown that AOD9604 had positive (anabolic) effects on cartilage tissue formation as well as enhancements in the differential of muscle progenitor cells (cells that create muscle cells) to muscle cells. Other purported benefits of AOD9604 include increasing muscle mass and IGF-1 levels. AOD-9604 is NOT APPROVED for human use. (<<< Also correct, although for some reason, possibly just oversight, the ACC fail to quote the relevant WADA S0 [catch all] category like they did above) Because SOME in the press are selectively choosing the first part of the related ACC report (as per Dee-vina's extract) and ignoring/overlooking the appendix (see above). Correct. However the press, and possibly the Bombers/AFL might well be viewing the ACC (and selective statements from its report) as relevant, and might be looking to use this to form a significant part of a potential defence should it come to that. I suspect however, that a deal will be nutted out between the AFL/Bombers and ASADA that goes someway towards settling the issue through certain limited (and possibly watered down/selective) bans/fines. Jobe Watson (and effectively Essendon) may well have played a very brave/honorable card on Monday night, with Jobe possibly deciding to out himself in order to become the main target/fall guy for ASADA, and protect the bulk of the rest of the team from a more broad brushed set of severe sanctions. Only speculation on my part though. Time will tell.

Most of our inside mid work from most players isnt pretty atm in general, as we're being dominated with first use etc going the way of our opponents. Apart from Jones, there's very few rotating inside mids atm who are capable. Rodan isn't outstanding I agree but he's more capable than our other alternatives at this point with the exception of Jones. II'd recommend you review the match against the Hawks. Obviously much better quality than the Saints. Had a fairly productive day both offensively and defensively. I would suggest it would be fairly difficult to perform week to week given where our stocks are at. Remember Jamar was missing last week as well whereas he wasn't against the Hawks. Having our most experienced ruckman in the middle also helps. I hear you though and certainly not saying he's anything spectacular compared to the rest of the comp. Just not one of OUR worst atm thru the middle as many here seem to believe. Edit: Spelling & the odd missing word (from phone lol)

Looks can be deceiving. Might wish to double check this. In the match against this year's likely grand finalist (Hawks) Rodan layed the most "effective" tackles in the team with 8. He also had 3 "effective defensive acts" which include smothers/spoils etc. He does play off his opponent a little too far IMO but then so do many within our mid field and they also tend to be lost in general play by their opponents far too easy, especially Trengove. One thing Rodan does have is pace though, and what he lacks in close checking often allows him to provide run and spread from a stoppage when we do get first use. At the same time he also contests and goes when he has to. His burst speed does allows him to close down on an opponent fairly quickly at times and pressure the ball carrier at the last minute. Sometimes it's effective and other times not so as he's given his opponent too much of a head start. And this is what fans tend to notice when we (or he) don't get first use of the ball. Although in the 2 matches he's played, Magner has averaged 6 tackles (not necessarily all effective) vs Rodan's 4.5 average. Almost on a par here although Magner's only played 2 matches, so not much to go on this year.

Nicholson is not within a bull's roar of Rodan or Magner at this point. Yes, when he's given the ball on a platter he runs harder and faster.....and then, more often than not, delivers the ball on a platter to our opponents at a higher percentage than the former 2. Magner gets the ball himself and works hard both ways. He averages more uncontesteds, contesteds, effective disposals, inside 50's and tackles than Nicho so far this year. Why you would want someone so rubbery as Nicho in the team to try and run off HB when you already have Garland, Terlich and Blease is beyond me. Neeld and Craig have been way off the mark on this one all year. Give me more rotational grunt through the mid field anyday at this point and use those 3 off HB. More than enough run. And if Blease and Terlich can tidy their disposal up a little more .....oops, hang on, i almost forgot. How silly of me. Blease is woeful in this area, in fact worse than Nicho. I think he's running at a tad over 52% disposal efficiency at this point with approx 5 effective disposals per match. Nicho 63.5% with approx 9 effective disposals per match. Out Blease, in Nicho lol (or another running HB from Casey???) Neither are good enough at this point! And if we're supposedly replacing people, we still haven't replaced the loss of a very sub par inside mid in McKenzie yet. Magner is the only choice for that replacement atm until Viney returns.

I dunno guys......the thought of us playing some home games in Tassie and the bulk of them here does have its merits. Afterall, they say two heads are better than one! (No offense intended Nash!)